If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Off topic, Christer, have you heard about the person we knew as Ed Stow? Is it true? You can PM me if you like, I know how to receive, but I don't know how to send p.m's. I'm really quite shocked by the stories.

dustymiller
aka drstrange

"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."Fisherman

Comment

Briefly, Cross and Paul walked past Mrs Chapman's murder site after leaving Mizen, Paul actually worked in the next street. Christer (Fisherman) will claim that Mrs Chapman was murdered before Cross got to work, others will argue she was killed after he went to work.

Lechmere's mother lived a few streets away from where Mrs Stride was killed, Maryanne Street, one of his daughters lived with his mother.

There is no real connection known to Catherine Eddowes murder, although Lechmerites claim Mitre Square was on his route to work, but there is no evidence that he went there.

Again, there is no known connection to Mary Kelly, however, Lechmerites claim Miller's Court was on his way to work, there is no evidence that he ever went there either.

Slightly off the topic, more recently, some Lechmerites have tried to link the Thames Torso Murders to poor old Cross.

It contains a few errors and some unreasonable speculation, but it will give you a good idea of what they are claiming.

For the other side, Steve Bloomer's book (when the lazy bugger finally finishes it!) will give you a comprehensive look at the Buck's Row incident. If you get a back issue of Ripperoloist (number 142), you'll see article by yours truly on the subject, that gives a basic overview from the other side to Christer's show. One caveat, in it I say Cross was 100 feet away, from the body when Paul saw him, it's since been pointed out to me my maths, never my strong point, was wonky and in fact the distance according to Cross's testimony was more likely around 50 feet away.

So the docu contained errors and unreasonable speculation? Thatīs a completely fair thing to say, because there WERE errors, as we have freely admitted, and the speculation is for anyone to choose whether he finds it unreasonable, viable, good, congenial, misleading or anything nhe honestly thinks.

So you are on the money there!

But how do you know that Steves book will be "comprehensive"? Have your read it?

And the Rip article ... should you really recommend it to anyone? "Wonky maths" and all? My personal take on that is that it is one of the worst articles ever admitted in the publication, if not the worst. And yes, I am as allowed to say that as you are to speak of errors and unreasonable speculation in the docu. Sorry, but there you are.

Comment

Rather stupidly, I measured the distance from Brown's stable yard to the wool warehouse where Cross said he was and added the width of the road, but, of course, the pair would have walked diagonally towards the body not at right angles, I even showed them walking it in the picture I made for the article, but still made the error, doh!

The point is still valid though, that Cross might well have been some quite sum distance from the body when the Paul encounter happened. Certainly not bending over the body as Christer TV show portrayed the incident.

And of course, I have a zillion times said that MY viewpoint is that if Lechmere was the killer and tried a bluff, he would NOT do so hovering over the body, he would move away from it, the longer the better. But since he had to be silent doing it, he would not get all that far, making the middle of the street a totally logical end station.

Comment

I am afraid you got it wrong, it is the other way round again, Lechmere is the one who refused to help shifting the woman, a completely strange behaviour to do after seeking Paul attention to the woman.

The Baron

Itīs the Daily Telegraph only who got it wrong, the rest got it right. Lechmere refused to help prop her up.

Comment

I have been making this argument on these pages for five years. It stands to reason that if he had killed her he'd have taken the opportunity to touch or move her body, with Paul witnessing him doing it, in order to reasonably and simply explain any blood on his person. Here we have Paul SUGGESTING they move her... yet Lechmere declines.

Christer's argument is always that Lechmere needn't have had much or ANY blood on his hands and/or clothing. And that he refused to "give her a prop" because he didn't want her injuries revealed. Yet...he just went to Paul and asked him to come see, even as Paul tried to walk past. He'd no idea if Paul had a match with which to light the scene, as Louis Diemschutz had with a candle in Dutfield's Yard. Yet he essentially forced the man to have a look at her. And now... he doesn't want her injuries revealed? If concealing her injuries was his objective, then why didn't he let Paul walk on in the first place (or walk on himself, etc.)?

In my opinion, it's unreasonable to believe that Lechmere could have cut Nichols throat, nearly decapitating her, performed the abdominal mutilations, and then hid the bloody knife in his clothing without getting some blood on his clothing. I mean, I applied caulk - which is certainly much thicker and less prone to splashing, running, etc. than blood - to my driveway last weekend, I dispensed it from a gun, wore rubber gloves, and still found I'd gotten some on my shorts, t-shirt, and wrists. But that, of course, may just be me.

Alas, I cannot say it's impossible that Lechmere got nary a drop of blood anywhere on his hands, clothing, etc. But, as I've said, the fact that he may not have gotten blood on his hands and/or clothing is irrelevant in that there is no way he could have been certain enough that he did not to behave as he did, at least not to my way of thinking. First, if he had in fact heard Paul some forty yards off as he was performing the mutilations, he had enough time only to stop what he was doing, stow the knife in his clothing, cover her wounds, and step away from her body. He certainly didn't have time to check himself thoroughly for blood. Second, it was so dark in Buck's Row that he couldn't have checked himself for blood. So dark that Paul didn't notice Nichols wounds or blood. Neil didn't either, until he used his lamp. Therefore, how could Lechmere have known whether he had blood on him or not? Yet he goes and TOUCHES Nichols with a hand we're to believe he'd just moments before employed for murder and mutilation? He then goes off in search of a PC whom he knows full well will be carrying a lamp?

The argument about no or little blood on the clothes is Payne-Jamesī, not mine. He is the expert, I listen to him. Does any expert say that he would have had lots of blood on his person?

Comment

>>I think a strong case can be made for how Lechmere, if he was the killer, may have chosen to tag along with Paul in order to try and sniff out exactly what he had seen and heard, and to find out who he was. That, and a will to keep in control, may have been what lay behind how things played out.<<

I can certainly see a logic in that as one alternative. The problem I have, however, is that he exhibited no control when the pair looked at Mrs Nichols body. He allowed Paul to poke around the neck and the abdomen. Logically these should have been the areas that he tried to control the situation with.

We donīt know to which degree he controlled the two mens positions by the body. It could well have been his doing. If Paul nevertheless came close to the neck, it would be hard for Lechmere to say "No! Donīt touch the neck!", would it not?
Once again, there is also the factor of the perceived invincibility many serial killers speak of. Lechmere could well have thought "there is no risk involved, and I can rule the day whatever happens here", they way that ilk generally reason.

Comment

I disagree. It is not only Payne-James who speak of a quick bleeding out time if all vessels in the neck are cut. Have you heard of a decapitation where the victim was most likely to have been decapitaded a quarter of an hour before the neck
I havent. Thatīs why I am so nonsensical. I am pretty sure that you have a debate on your hands if that is what you are going to claim. Payne-James said that he was never willing to uneqivocally rule out longer times of bleeding but the 3-5 minute range was the one that was more likely in his eyes. I was the one who asked, we were the ones who discussed it and you are the one who tell me I misinterpreted him, although you havent seen the full conversation.
I will leave it there.

With regards to the bleeding,
What Payne-James says is so guarded and vague it is of little real use, and of that I am not surprised, but it Still allows an hypothesis to be made.

The issue of course is that the hypothesis is so flawed, it cannot actually be tested.

All the details are covered, I look forward to you attempting to rebutt the conclusions.

Comment

One issue I find amazing is that people still appear to accept the time Paul gives for events, 3.45.
There are many issues with this.

The pricise 3.45 is given only in the newspaper account, carried in Lloyds Weekly and several other papers.
That this report has serious issues is hard to deny, Paul takes the lead role in all events, and shows a marked anti-police attitude in general.

There is also the distinct possibility, looking at the style of the article that it is at the very least lead by the journalist.

Of course some Lechmere proponents, while dismissing much of Paul's account, cling to the 3.45 as fact because it fits there hypothesis.

This time of 3.45 is at odds with the sworn testimony of 3 seperate police officers.

Lechmere proponents then attempt to dismiss these times, by quoting from a latter police report, which gives the time of discovery as 3.45, and given Paul and Lechmere are first there, this must mean they arrive at 3.45.

Such of course masks the serious issue of time keeping and reporting in 1888. And ignores that a previous report stated 3.40.
What was meant is thus not as clear as pro Lechmere researchers claim.

I have read this thread, and seen the suggestion that Paul heard a clock strike the quarter to.

Such is of course perfectly possible, however no one else reported hearing any such strike, neither indeed did Paul, so such a suggestion must therefore remain unsupported speculation.

There is a further very large assumption being made that the times are Syncronizied.
Paul may well have a time piece at home, but that does not mean it shows the same time as used by Lechmere or the Police.
But perhaps he used a clock at the Albion Brewery, maybe, but the very same issues of synchronization still occur.
Given his time cannot be verified, and there is evidence which counters it, or can not be shown to be in anyway synchronised to others involved in the events in Bucks Row, I humbly suggested it cannot be used to suggest any form of gap at all, be it long or short, between Paul and Lechmere.

When Paul finally gives his testimony on the 17th, it is short and somewhat altered from his press article.
The pricise 3.45 for entering Bucks Row, now becomes about 3.45 for leaving his home.
Questions are not asked, which should be asked, the appearance on the 17th raises more questions than it answers.
One can wonder why? I attempt to address some possible answers in "Inside Bucks Row"

I see nothing in the sources, which when looked at carefully and without starting from the point that Lechmere is JtR, that indicates that Paul is much more than 30-40 seconds at most behind Lechmere.

This comes from the testimonies of both men as to when they become aware of the other(including the Lloyds Weekly account, with all its flaws).
This could be even shorter depending on the relative walking pace of the two men..

Steve

Yes, it may be that the journalist made up the 3.45 timing.

Yes, it may be that Paul was wrong if he was the one who "made it up".

But that does not change how the paper interview has Paul saying 3.5 exactly.

Not does it change how the timing is seemingly powerfully bolstered by how Paul at the inquest says that he left home close to 3.45.

We may like or dislike a timing given. Until any evidence calls upon us to dismiss it, though, it will have to stand.

And, of course, the "sworn testimony" of three PC:s are about APPROXIMATIONS, not about exact times like Pauls time. And he swore to THAT time too by bolstering it at the inquest. So it becomes a question about whether we must trust approximations from PC:s over exact timings from a carman. If the PC:s could hear the quater hour strike some little time after they were called into action, it would be entirely feasible that this was the reason for their timings.

Either suggestion has things going for it. And Lechmere cannot be ruled out in this way - either.

Comment

But then perhaps not if he didn't want to dragged back to the police station toexplain why Pickfords didn't employ anybody called Lechmere.

>>I think he would not have disagree with Mizen if innocent.<<

I disagree with you and both of us are innocent. People disagree because they don't believe the other person is relating the story correctly.

>>If there WAs a misunderstanding, I donīt think that it would have been tailormade to allow Lechmere to pass Mizen by.<<

That's your opinion and your welcome to think it as others are entitled to think otherwise.

>>I think he would have given a time that fit with his being in Bucks Row at such a late stage.<<

He did. No later time fits.

>>I think he would have told Mizen that he though that Nichols was dead, and that he would have been required to give his name and to stay put with Mizen if innocent.<<

Under this logic Paul is guilty. Plus we both know that getting to work was a major priority in Victorian times. There is nothing odd about innocent men not wanted to get involved and delayed, I've even seen it happen in the current world where work loss is not so dire.

dustymiller
aka drstrange

"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."Fisherman

Comment

Monty was wrong. I pointed out that there has been developments. You need to read that to get the picture. But I agree that the same tiresome rebuttals will crop up like a patella reflex. Every time, regardless of the information given.

He was not, there has been no new evidence which shows any firm connection to Nichols or any other murder.